Thirty Years Later Rape Is Still Rape: Polanski's Date with Lady Justice
How naïve of Roman Polanski to think we'd forget that he was a wanted man despite the many films he's made and awards he's won over the last three decades. Time does heal old wounds, but in Polanksi's case Lady Justice has proven to be a patient and watchful woman.
Polanski fled the U.S. for Europe over thirty years to avoid sentencing and jail time after pleading guilty for the rape of a thirteen-year-old girl whom he plied with drugs and alcohol. Since then, he has been free to make movies, travel freely throughout Europe, and enjoy quite a comfortable life. I suppose if I were him I'd think by now the whole rape thing would have blown over too.
I am shocked by the outpouring of support from celebrities and others who have come to Mr. Polanksi's defense and have pleaded for his release. The victim, now in her late 40s, has even stepped forward to ask that he be released. While many use this as additional justification to set him free, we all know that its not unusual for victims of violence to let their perpetrators off the hook because they do not want to relive the traumatic experience. In her case, she is probably receiving around the clock calls from Debra Winger and others asking that she forgive and forget.
To make their case, his supporters say Polanski has served his time and deserves to be free. I find this confusing given that he only served 42 days in jail and when sentencing was to happen he used his resources and connections to flee the country. Since when has 42 days been an adequate jail sentence for rape of a minor?
Fortunately for Polanski's victim and other victims of sexual assault who often wait years for justice, the law doesn't care if you're a celebrity or won the 2003 Academy Award for The Pianist, you will be held accountable -- even if its 30 years later.
Letting Polanksi off the hook perpetuates the belief there is a shadow justice system at work in the U.S. for the rich and well connected. We all suspect it, but allowing Mr. Polanski to go free would confirm it. He and his supporters should not get to determine or decide his punishment. He should be held accountable for his actions and brought to justice.
The irony in all of this is that Polanski was captured after arriving to receive a prestigious lifetime achievement award in Switzerland. It looks like his life has come full circle, and after all these years, the credits can finally roll.
Jamie Lee Curtis: Crimes and Misdemeanors
David Letterman makes this revelation about his personal life because he was being extorted. I understand he was staying ahead of the wave, and I commend him for it, but really, is this any of our business?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
He fled the country because he didnt think he was going to get the judgement he thought he deserved. Thats not the way our system works and he knew it. Thats why he ran. He was guilty of rape of a minor and was awaiting sentencing. He should go to jail for the rape and add on another ten years for fleeing just like they do when you bust out of jail. Maybe in jail he will understand the fear that women feel when rape is just around the corner.
As for the celebrities endorsing him: I have nothing but contemp for people who put thier monetary/ career gain above the horendous abuse of a minor(s) and women.
He, of all people, considering his past, should have been a defender of children not thier worst nightmare.
A Poem - What if
- The A&E industry didn't close rank around RP
- No statements by French Cultural Ministers
- No petitions signed by an international Who's Who
- No Debra Winger crying foul
- Or Whoopi (rape-rape)
- What would that look like
- What are these people afraid of
- By not supporting him
- Never being invited for Apres Ski ever again
- Or partying with him in Cannes
- Not appearing in any of his future productions
- Getting no love from Roman
What If
zahara2603 is no match for walt whitman
Thank you Huffpo bloggers, for giving childrens rights the same respect and coverage as you do women's rights. How do certain bloggers call themselves feminists, and cry for rights and freedom for all women, but don't believe the same right extends to minor girls.
Finally the sane Huffpo bloggers have arrived.
You know the ones who ALWAYS think it's wrong to rape a child.
The Blogs posted on Monday made me sick and angry.
The LA County prosecutor's office approved a plea bargain to so-called "statutory rape", consensual sex with a minor. Based on the minor's grand jury testimony, I can see why the prosecutor offered the plea bargain. The minor said that she had only intended to participate in a photo shoot, yet she willingly drank champagne and took 1/3 of a Quaalude tablet, not what a professional model is supposed to do. She could have had her mother present to supervise (normal for minor actresses etc) but chose not to do so. After drinking the wine and taking the pill, she took off most of her clothes, got into the jacuzzi, allowed Polanski to get into the jacuzzi with her, and only then said that she thought the situation was getting out of hand. Yet commentator after commentator says that because Polanski admitted having sex with a minor, it must have been forcible rape.
Polanski had no criminal record. If he had been an ordinary person, not a celebrity, he would have received probation and a short jail sentence for a "stat rape" conviction, then and probably today.
Polanski, in fact, received a short state prison stay, not a mere county jail sentence, so he's already received the punishment that would have been imposed in the average "stat rape" case.
Under the circumstances, Polanski has been and is being treated far more harshly than the average offender simply because he's Polanski.
Ah, yes. It's only rape some guy jumps out of the bushes with a knife and tears your clothes off.
And, 13-year-old's are great judges of character and are very good at dealing with the unwanted advances of a much, much older man.
Since when is a 13-year-old a "professional" model?
Since when is the poor judgement of a 13-year-old an excuse for forcible rape and sodomy by a man in his mid-forties?
SHE WAS A CHILD. He was the adult. He is a rapist.
This blaming the vicim, blaming the mother, blaming the judge, blaming everyone except the rapist is so very, very telling, if only the Polanski-apologists could see themselves as sane folk see them.
What part of being a13-year-old don't you get???
He fled the country before sentencing. THAT'S a crime, by the way. If you want to debate the age of consent or the victim's character or the definition of rape, that's one thing. But he plead guilty to the charge and fled before sentencing. That's a crime; a crime he has not received punishment for. You want to debate that, too? Go ahead. I'd love to read that.
All of you imploring us to view the doc Roman Polanski: wanted and desired....save it. The doc completely glosses over his crime and paints the udge as an unreliable nut. as if that excuses Polanski's behavior. The doc was produced by another artistic, sympathizer.
For a takedown on this documentary read Bill Wyman's excellent article in Salon last year. "Whitewashing Roman Polanski".
http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2009/02/19/roman_polanski_documentary/
See C. Nicole Mason's Profile
Bluesea, the question is did he rape her or not. I find it hard to believe that you are choosing to focus on the judge or other extraneous facts in this case.
I will say upfront, I am not familiar with this case in detail, so I will only address comments posted here, and specifically your first comment, Ms. Mason:
You say here in comments, "the question is did he rape her or not." This implies this is an open question. Yet, in your article, you specifically call him a rapist by saying he plead "guilty for the rape" of this young woman. You can't have it both ways.
If it is correct that he fled the country prior to the court accepting the plea deal, we cannot say he "pled" to anything. He may have intended to plead to guilty of sex with a minor (which most people understand as statuatory rape). Stat rape may or may not be consentual, yet still be classified as "rape". Nonetheless, without a convition or an accepted plea agreement, there's no grounds to be sentencing him to prison.
The concept of rhetorical questions is beyond you isn't it?
"I find it hard to believe that you are choosing to focus on the judge or other extraneous facts in this case."
Please consider seeing the HBO movie Roman Polanksi: Wanted and Desired
It isn't kind to Mr. Polanski - but should you choose to see it you will find that the judge (unfortunately) is not extraneous at all to this case.
It's a partisan hack job.
Enough.
you're justification for your argument is a reference to an HBO documentary? I'm sorry, I don't understand that at all.
If he felt that he was being punished too harshly or not in line with statute or presiding law, he had a multitude of legal avenues to pursue. Being a man of much wealth at the time (just as now) he could have done so without having the trouble average defendants face. He didn't do that. He fled. And he plead to guilt of the charge. Were you this excusing of Larry Craig when he tried to withdraw his guilty plea?
Oh bad news.. The key lawyer who was the basis for most of the acccusations of judicial misconduct admitted today that he lied. Interesting that the "documentary" was done after Judge Rittenband died and couldn't speak for himself.
The question is not whether or not he raped her. Roman Polanski agreed to a plea deal as did the Judge, prosecutor, and everyone involved. Then after Polanski served the 42 days the judge illegally reneged on the deal. So Polanski left to avoid illegal imprisonment. Even the prosecutor in the case said he would have done the same.
The constitutionally guaranteed due process of law is a very important part of democracy, and Polanski’s due process was violated.
Regardless of what everyone thinks the sentence should be, Polanski served his sentence which he agreed to. Blame Judge Rittenband for violating Polanski's right to due process if you think he didn't serve long enough.
I don't like this anymore than the next guy because It seems like the Polanski got preferential treatment back then like all of Hollywood. However, it seems the LA DA is trying to drag this through the media 30 years later because times have changed and they think public will be so outraged that they will want the court to disregard the law. Unfortunate as it may be, the judge screwed up and they have to live with this mistake.
Prediction: If Polanski is brought back to USA he will be given freedom because he has served his sentence.
He did not utilize the system to right the supposed wrong against him. He fled, which is a crime. Supporters criticize the system for being broken, but Polanski busted it up as well when he fled, and avoided due process. His own as well as society's. He did not pursue legal options to fight his sentence or the judge or the prosecution. He opted to illegally flea the country to avoid the system completely.
I'm getting sick of the debate as to whether a crime took place. It's a debate not based in fact and it's a waste of time. He already plead guilty to a charge, so he has admitted to committing the crime already.
I too am dismayed at all the out pouring of support for a child rapist. But I am not surprised at those in
Hollywood who desperately cling to the idea that they are above the law. They need to think of themselves as "special" and immortal because of their "gifts" and how dare the rest of us expect them to adhere to the same laws as we common folk. This is what happens in a celebrity worshipping culture.
Those who say 42 days is all the time he should have done for raping a 13 year old girl should never be allowed to be parents.
Sex with a minor is rape. It's a question of consent, not a question of force.
Meant for the post below me.
Defending Mr. Polaski is a difficult task - that is not my point. However, the author of this story has published false information:
"Polanski fled the U.S. for Europe over thirty years to avoid sentencing and jail time after pleading guilty for the rape of a thirteen-year-old girl"
No - he didn't. He plead guilty to having sex with a minor. You may want to see the HBO movie on this case. It won't make you feel better about Polaski having relations with a 13 year old. But that said - even the prosecuting DA states he can understand why Polaski fled. The judge appeared to be a nut case (see the HBO movie, and comments from prosecution and defense).
Polaski agreed to a plea case where he would just serve brief time for the sex w a minor charge. The judge then decided not to honor his commitment to the defense - the judge was concerned about his PR.
Like many things in life - the headline doesn't inform one about the real story. I'm not saying Polaski is innocent - not at all. But he in effect already served his time.
The REAL nutcase is the guy who raped and sodomised a child.
No he didn't. He fled. End of complication.
I agree. I feel like this whole debate about a broken system is the example of the broken system. To be honest, if he wasn't famous he wouldn't have gotten offered a plea deal in the first place. But he was, and I'm not going to whine against that, but I am going to point out that when a plea is withdrawn there are legal options for the defendant, and he chose not to pursue then but flea. That's what supporters or Polanski defenders are ignoring, and that's the saddest part. "Justice delayed is justice denied." He could have gotten his own justice if he had fought for it legally. But he compounded crime with crime, and for that he is wrong.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
